Press freedom advocates won two important victories as congress decriminalized defamation, and a federal court issued a ruling that, while still under appeal, could lead to the dismantling of the government’s manipulative distribution of official advertising. But those advances were obscured by a contentious debate over broadcast regulatory legislation backed by the government of President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. The measure, signed into law in October and immediately challenged in court, apportioned broadcast frequencies among private, government, and nonprofit outlets, while creating a new regulatory body.

The administration said
the legislation would curb monopolies, making radio and television more
democratic, butmedia owners and opposition politicians saw it
as a means for the government to exert greater control over news content and
force large media companies to divest some holdings. The debate worsened
overall relations between the administration and the media, and fueled
confrontations between the administration and the country’s largest media
owner, the Clarín Group.

Individual journalists were split on the legislation, which was based on an initiative drafted by a coalition of civil society groups called the Alliance for
Democratic Broadcasting. The law replaced an anachronistic measure, enacted
during military rule in 1980, that gave the executive branch sole regulatory
power over broadcasting. Kirchner unveiled the new legislation in late August,
saying that it would “allow everybody to speak their minds.” By early October,
after heated debate and more than 100 legislative revisions, the sweeping
measure had become law.

The legislation reserves a
third of the television and radio spectrum for nonprofit organizations; the
other two-thirds are to be divided between private companies and state
broadcasters. It also limits the number of licenses a company can hold, and
sets quotas for locallyproduced music, films, and programs. Companies
that own both broadcast networks and cable channels must divest one of the two
types of holdings. Divestiture and other aspects of the law were immediately
challenged in federal courts. In December, a judge in Mendoza ordered implementation
of the law be suspended while the challenges were pending. The government said
it would appeal.

Most Argentine journalists
said the military-era broadcasting rules needed an overhaul, but some worried
the new law would limit free expression. The composition of the new regulatory
body was at the center of the argument. The law requires the new regulator be
composed of seven members—two appointed by the president, three by Congress,
and two by a federal council made up mostly of governors with some civil
society representatives. “The regulator will rely heavily on political
appointees, and the executive will have a lot of power in nominating its
members and controlling its functions,” warned Adrián Ventura, a columnist for
thedailyLa Nación and a tough government critic. Detractors also
pointed to vague definitions in the text that they said could allow the new
regulator to revoke broadcast licenses.

Supporters countered that
if the government wanted to exert control over the media, it already had an
effective tool in the 1980 law. Backers included Frank La Rue, a U.N. special
rapporteur on freedom of expression, who called the new law “an example to
other countries.” Horacio Verbitsky, famed columnist for the daily Página 12 and president of the human rights organization Centro de Estudios
Legales y Sociales, said the law represented “a significant step forward toward
the enrichment of a democratic debate through a more pluralistic access to
information.” CPJ found that while the legislation is an important improvement
over the 1980 law, its provisions could be misused for political purposes. In
particular, CPJ said it would monitor whether the regulatory agency is
subjected to undue political influence.

Despite government
denials, many analysts said the legislation was also aimed at weakening the
Clarín Group, owner of newspapers, radio stations, and both broadcast and cable
television outlets. Clarín, an Internet service provider as well, has produced
critical coverage of the Kirchner administration. The legislative debate
escalated existing animosity between the administration and Clarín. The administration and its
allies lashed out at Clarín for what they
perceived to be biased coverage, most notably in June elections in which Kirchner’s Peronist party
lost its congressional majority.

Amid the deteriorating
climate, Clarín was subjected to a direct government attack. On September 11,
about 200 tax agents raided the offices of the group’s newspaper, Clarín, after the paper ran a cover story alleging the government
improperly granted a farm subsidy. Clarín and others decried the raid as
government intimidation. The tax agency immediately backpedaled, saying the
raid was conducted in error and claiming to fire two officials for carrying out
the action.

The administration also
claimed to be investigating who ordered the raid and why, but it disclosed no
findings by late year. La Nación, citing tax agency documents, reported in
December that Ricardo Echegaray, the agency’s director, had ordered the raid
and that the two officials were never actually dismissed. No government tax
probe was ever carried out against Clarín.

Clarín was targeted in another episode with political
overtones. The Teamsters, headed by close administration ally Hugo Moyano,
briefly blocked the distribution of Clarín, La
Nación, Perfil, and other newspapers in November, demanding that the papers’
drivers be represented by the union. The newspapers and the publishers group
Asociación de Entidades Periodísticas Argentinas complained that the union’s
move was politically motivated.

In November, in a major
advance for press freedom, Congress decriminalized libel and slander. The
measure followed recommendations made by the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights in a May 2008 ruling. The court, an arm of the Organization of American
States, voided the 1999 criminal defamation conviction of journalist and author
Eduardo Kimel. The case stemmed from Kimel’s book, La Masacre de San Patricio (The San Patricio Massacre), in which he
criticized an investigation into the 1976 slaying of five priests during the
military dictatorship. The court also urged Argentine leaders to reform
defamation laws in line with regional standards.

Journalists and free press
advocates also hailed a January ruling by a federal appeals court that found
the government was improperly withholding state advertising from publications
owned by the media group Editorial Perfil in retaliation for its critical
coverage of the Kirchner administration. The government appealed the decision,
and the case was pending in late year.

CPJ and other analysts
have found that Kirchner, following a system institutionalized during her
husband’s presidency, has manipulated the distribution of state advertising by
withholding ads to critical media and rewarding friendly outlets with
government spots. Free press advocates have contended that manipulative
government advertising violates Articles 14 and 32 of the Argentine
Constitution, which bar censorship and guarantee press freedom, respectively;
and Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights.